Talk:2005–06 NHL season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ice Hockey (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Thinking of adding to "Debuts" or "Last Games"???

Please see the following link to determine if your addition meets "notability" guidelines or else your edits may be reverted

Project Ice Hockey Guidelines for Notability


Please see Talk:National Hockey League#Vandalism, section titled "Vandalism". Thanks!!! Flcelloguy 23:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there a point of recording over time losses if they aren't going to be worth points? And for that matter, what's t he point of having a points column if they are going to he the same as the win column except x2? -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK, the OTL is still worth a point. – flamurai (t) 03:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I heard that it wouldn't be. I guess we will just have to wait and see. :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
It does give a point. :) --Xtanstic 10:02, October 8, 2005 (EST)

Stanley Cup time[edit]

I'm new to WP and not a member of the project (yet), but I was wondering if there was a consensus on what to do about the playoffs. Looking through past years, specifically 2002-03, it looks like the overall matchups for the playoffs were kept on the season page. However, this year there is a link and article for the playoffs themselves (here). Should we go ahead and stick with tradition and put the info on this page or do we want to keep it on a separate page and only add the info on the finals to this page?

If we keep it the way it is, I'd like to see the same depth of information on the new page as there is on the 2002-03 one. Hell, I'd even volunteer to keep that page up to date if no one else wants it. I just think that we should make a decision as a community, preferably before the playoffs start on Friday. Z4ns4tsu 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

mad or glad?[edit]

who wants to watch hockey after wathcing that greedy greedy display of greed?

-me; a good analogy would be a taking a hot girl on a date. The hot girl is a bitch all night, but at the end of the night she offers you sex. Of course you love sex enough to ignore the fact that she was being a bitch, you partake.

new logo??[edit]

does anybody have a link that explains why they changed the logo? I honestly prefer the old one!--Sonjaaa 09:18, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I like the older one too, but that isn't for us to decide. Masterhatch 10:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
more disussion here --Sonjaaa 11:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I don't really see a big difference between the new and old logos. Maybe it's just me.

What's the purple BG cell color for in the standings?[edit]

For the playoff teams? Already? Or last season's playoff contenders? Or get rid of it altogether until they mean something? --Xtanstic 10:02, October 8, 2005 (EST)

I kinda agree that it is a little too early for the playoff colours. But since I don't plan to help keep the season up-to-date, I don't really care either way. Masterhatch 02:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not the one who started shading, but I've incorporated it into this systematic approach I've been doing. (Ideally) Once a day after all the games have been played, one straight-thru edit of the standings will take place. I've shaded the teams that are scheduled to play that day to make life easier in tracking which ones need changing. I hope this works out OK. --megarockman 0:11, October 9, 2005 (CDT)
The shading was originally for the teams who are in the top 8 of their respective conferences. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what it means. I suggest removing it unless it can serve some useful purpose. I am also trying to figure out what the proper formula is for determining team standings beyond teams tied by points and how that affects their seatings. SD6-Agent 02:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It's an easy way for me to mark which teams' records need to be changed when it comes time to update the standings. As for proper formula, my understanding is that it goes number of wins, then goal differential. --megarockman 0:55 13 October 2005 (CDT)
We can't have these colour coded for the conveniece of ONE person. You can find other way to keep track of standings that are not so invasive on Wikipedia. SD6-Agent 11:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, whatever. I thought that such convenience would also carry over to other people. --megarockman 23:13 17 October 2005 (CDT)

wow, way too much![edit]

The top, what? 30 scoring leaders? (I didn't actually count them as there are way too many). Do we need that many? 10 is a nice round number. 15 isn't bad either. But we gotta have limits otherwise why don't we mention the top 100 or 300 players? I suggest we cap it at 15. No, I strongly suggest that we cap it at 15. Masterhatch 05:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to include all the players with 5 points. Feel free to cut it shorter as the season winds on. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Leading goaltenders[edit]

I can't quite figure out the method used for the leading goaltenders. Shouldn't it be the goalie with the lowest goals against average first? Also, we can remove the "ties" column, can't we? As far as I understand it, there won't be any ties this year. Masterhatch 18:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As stated in the project season page, leading goaltenders are to be sorted by GAA. Also, foaltenders only receive ties in the standings, IIRC, if the game goes into a shootout. kelvSYC 05:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Rule Changes[edit]

I was looking at the rule change section and I thought that a better explination of the "tag-up offside" rule would help put a lot to those who don't follow hockey and understand the rules. If anyone has any objections I'll wait to see, if not, I'll change the section in a few days. anon 02:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea! I support it. By all means, go ahead and elaborate on the matter. Xtanstic 02:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added the rules on tag-up offside, I think it could be cleaned up a bit, however I'm not really good at these things, perhaps someone can fix it? anon 20:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I was also looking at the rule changes, and not having followed NHL for a long long time, I thought "was changed? as opposed to?". I mean, could someone who knows more about this, try to include how the rules were before. Was there a shootout at all before; or was it 5 shots per team; something else? You know what I mean...--HJV 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing that bothered me is that when the refs now have those microphones, it really doesn't help the meaning anymore. Everyone who watches hockey everyday knows the signals so the mics aren't really needed. Another thing is that the PA announcer always said the penalty. People might get a little frustrated that the PA announcer repeats the offical. The offical doesn't need to say anything. Half the time the mic isn't even on and the other half is that the mic has feedback or doesn't work because the refs are actually involved in the game, not like the NFL refs. It works for the NFL, but I believe that the mics should be taken out of the NHL. However, if there is a dispute and there is also a reviewable play (such as a goal review), that is when the refs should use the microphones to address the players, fans both in the arena and watching at home, and for the commentators so that way they can explain on-air to the fans watching at home.Hurricane06 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC).

Overtime rule?[edit]

The play-off overtime rule isn't new, is it? -- 04:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about it. AFAIK, it's play 'til you drop, same as always. --Doogie2K 19:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The play-offs are to remain the same, the shootout rules are for regular season only. --Maraulth 20:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

All-Star Game[edit]

It says that since Phoenix was supposed to get the All-Star Game this year, but its cancelled for the Olympics. So, the article claims it will be in 2009 instead. That don't seem true to me. I recall hearing that Montréal will get the 2009 All-Star Game, on account of its 100th anniversary, something the league is very wanting to do. Can we get any confirmation or refuttal for this? Kaiser matias 02:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't have any sources, but I remember reading somewhere a while back that Montreal was very interested in grabbing the All-Star Game, the World Juniors and other hockey related events (entry draft? unsure..) in order to hold this grand bunching of stuff in order to honor the 100th anniversary. I dunno if the league is fully behind it as you claim, but I definately know the Montreal organization would very much like it. Xtanstic 01:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

New East, west logos up in English and French[edit]

I added the new NHL Eastern and Western Conference logos in both English and French to the standings pages. Hope you like it. NoseNuggets 1:06 AM US EST Feb 26 2006

Cool, though I do think the names could have been a little more...intuitive (NHL East French Words, NHL West English Letter, that sort of thing). I've tossed the English Words ones onto the appropriate conference articles. Doogie2K 16:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Clinches and Eliminations[edit]

If anyone has questions about the clinching things, drop a line here. It can get kinda confusing.

Side note: Can someone replace the Blackhawks logo in the standings? It seems to have disappeared.

  • Regarding Detriot's divison clinch: Detroit holds the 2nd tiebreaker over Nashville (cumilative points):
    • Jan 6 - Det 3, @Nas 1
    • Jan 23 - Nas 3, @Det 2
    • Jan 24 - Nas 2, @Det 1 (OT)
    • Feb 8 - @Det 6, Nas 0
    • Feb 9 - Det 3, @Nas 2
    • Mar 21 - Nas 3, @Det 2 (SO)
    • Mar 30 - Det 4, @Nas 2
    • Total: Detroit 10, Nashville 6

They play their season finale at Nashville on the 18th, but it is irrelevent as Nashville can't win the tiebreaker. Yeah, it's probably being nitpicky about arguing over something so trivial, but still.

If Nashville won all of their remaining games and Detroit lost all of theirs, they would be tied at 110 points. If, on the April 18th game Nashville beat Detroit 5-0, they would win the 2nd tiebreaker 11 to 10. Or am I missing something? -arctic gnome 05:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

These points are the standings points teams get for winning games, not goals scored. Nashville winning the finale would leave them with 8 points earned out of the 8 games played between the two teams.

  • One thing that would really help us understand the clinches would be if the total number of games each team is supposed to play would be written somewhere. I've been looking around at a number of sites now, such as, but I just can't find it explicitly. I'm guessing it's 82 like in03-04, but I'm not sure enough to put it in the article. Would someone who actually knows plz add it? /Kriko 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Counted the Rangers' schedule. It's 82.

  • Ignor me stupidly asking someone to change the Hurricanes' shading from Red. It was yellow, I just couldn't tell at first. zls44 20:00 EST, 6 April 2006

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)